Share This Story!

Other views: The unraveling of the Patriot Act

In the years since the USA Patriot Act was approved in the frantic days following 9/11, it has become steadily more apparent that the law and the way it was applied were an overreaction to those horrific events

Join the Conversation

Other views: The unraveling of the Patriot Act

Published 2:47 p.m. CT May 11, 2015

A sign stands outside the National Security Agency campus in Fort Meade, Maryland. A federal appeals court has declared illegal the National Security Agency program that collects data on the landline calling records of nearly every American.(Photo: AP)

In the years since the USA Patriot Act was approved in the frantic days following 9/11, it has become steadily more apparent that the law and the way it was applied were an overreaction to those horrific events.

The most flagrant abuse is the government’s collection of staggering amounts of phone “metadata” on virtually every American. That program — which collects the number you call, when you call and how long you talk — was secret until Edward Snowden’s leaks confirmed it in 2013.

Last Thursday, a federal appeals court — the highest to rule on the issue — found that the program is illegal. You’d think the unambiguous ruling from a unanimous three-judge panel would finally force changes to the bulk collection program.

But that’s not necessarily going to happen, even though a compromise has emerged in Congress that would go a long way toward rebalancing security and liberty.

Under the compromise, the data would remain with the phone companies instead of the government. Requests to access the database would have to be far more limited, and each would require approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The new procedure would eliminate some of the phone collection program’s most intrusive features, while keeping the security it offers at a time when the terrorist group Islamic State brings new threats. The measure has support from Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, and a long list of civil liberties and privacy groups.

It would also satisfy the court, which didn’t dispute Congress’ right to create such a program, just the executive branch’s right to do so without Congress’ assent.

Yet instead of embracing the compromise, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, and others are working to sabotage it. They want the Senate to ensure that the program will continue just as it is after parts of the Patriot Act expire at the end of this month.

While the phone program’s benefits are dubious, its costs are clear. Several major tech companies have said that privacy intrusions have hurt U.S. companies. Meanwhile, innocent Americans suffer an assault to their privacy each day the government collects data on their calls. And if this sort of collection goes on, history demonstrates the government is likely to abuse it.

As the appeals court ruling warned, if the government’s interpretation were correct in stretching the law to collect phone data, it could use the same interpretation to “collect and store in bulk any other existing metadata available anywhere,” including financial records, medical records, email and social media.

Choosing between privacy and security in these dangerous times is difficult. But, despite what supporters of bulk collection insist, lawmakers don’t have to choose.

A carefully built compromise allows access to phone records, but with genuine privacy safeguards. The nation would be no less secure. And the civil liberties on which the nation was built would be better protected.